Cities of Bone is a minicampaign associated with the Al-Qadim setting. I just recently picked up a used copy because I have a weakness for necromancy themes. I don’t own any other Al-Qadim products (though I did own Arabian Adventures at one point), so I’m not sure exactly how it fits in, but it seems somewhat self-contained. I love the idea of a desert land strewn with ruins, though if I ran this myself I would probably make it more culturally neutral rather than use all the custom classes and spells (which are mostly detailed in other products anyways).

The scope of the product seems almost perfect for a sandbox (see what I did there?), though the organization is poor and how the various locations tie together is not clear. There is enough material to keep players occupied for a while while still begging for referee customization. There is no pretence of Cities of Bone being a complete setting. The snippets of history and background that are provided support the adventuring sites rather than overwhelming them with trivia.

The set feels strangely unfinished, as if it was rushed out the door. The Adventure Book has no proper cover, though it looks like it should have one (it’s just saddle-stapled paper, like the interior of one of the old modules with detachable covers). Despite that, the production values are relatively high, though the overland map cards do not connect (that is, they seem to be three random samples of the Zakhara map, which I only discovered by looking up a full map on the Internet).

The interior layouts are gorgeous though, using two-tone gold and black borders (I bet they just reused that work from Arabian Adventures). There are six color full page cards, and all of them have (attractively rendered) dungeon maps. There is also a poster sized map which reproduces the Jade Palace of the Necromancers and, while pretty, would be entirely useless during play. Oh, and an eight page saddle stapled Monstrous Compendium style NPC book (one NPC per page). I may not be doing a good job making it clear that I actually like this set, despite the general 2E decadence.

Second Edition products are afflicted with a fetish for standardized presentation, and Cities of Bone is no different. It feels like everything starts with an official template for required information. For example, in the Campaign Guide (32 pages), every area has the following categories: Ruler, The Court, Population, Features of the City, Major Products, Armed Forces, Major Mosques. Even if it’s a ruin which is occupied by undead and obviously doesn’t need such schematic presentation. Example: Ysawis, City of the Dead; Population:

More than 5,000 animated skeletons and zombies lurk in and around Ysawis. All were animated by the necromancers. The number grows continually, for each day, Sumulael and Kazerabet add 20 to 30 more to the population.

Etc. This reminds me of the Monstrous Compendium format where every page must have a magic resistance field (even if it is usually “Nil”), a special attacks field, a habit/society section, and so on. This inflexibility is a major weakness of Second Edition, but is not fatal (just slightly annoying, as it feels like everything is padded). There are some nice sections in the beginning of the Campaign Guide about the dangers of tomb robbing (diseases) and some details about tomb specific dungeon dressing.

The bulk of the product’s text is in the 64 page Adventure Book, which is basically a collection of six modules that share a theme but are otherwise unconnected. None of the adventures are spectacular, but all are serviceable and have enough background to make them interesting sandbox locations. One of them punishes the PCs for recovering any treasure but provides a “story reward” of 50k XP if the party makes it in and out (there are hints about how to do this).

The longest of the adventures centers on the Jade Palace (pictured partially above) and has palace intrigue with five different powerful NPCs that players can ally with, which is pretty interesting and nonlinear (especially since it is set in a ruined city full of undead and also has a stuffed tiger zombie). As written, there are many railroad elements, but it has potential (and also seems heavily influenced by Clark Ashton Smith’s Empire of the Necromancers). Overall, I can’t unreservedly recommend this box in general, but it has enough elements that appeal to my sensibilities to make it worthwhile to me.

I already posted this on G+ and OD&D Discussion, but I figure it can’t hurt to throw it up here too.

I like thinking about the implied setting of the 3 LBBs, so some of the info contained here is also taken from the encounter tables. For example, nixies, pixies, and dryads are not listed under the giant type, so I am assuming that they are not so much faerie creatures as manifestations of natural essence. Also, the dwarf/gnome and goblin/kobold pairings makes me think those creatures are more closely related than other monsters in the same category. Further, the divisions of the giant types into chaos/law makes me think of a unseely/seely court kind of setup.

Some info about terrain is also included (flyer, swimmer, underworld). Based on TU&WA, it seems like purple worms, minotaurs, and medusae only show up underground.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about procedural ways to generate campaign elements. In my mind, this is significantly different than randomly generating things using some framework, which is often how computer tools work. There can also be randomness in the kind of system I am talking about, but each decision point need not be decided randomly or from some set of limited options. The ACKS guidelines for creating a campaign are kind of like this, but are perhaps a bit more free-form.

That is, the rules for such a system must be clear enough to guide you at every step, though they don’t need to be algorithmic. These are, it seems to me, the same requirements for a good game, and in fact there are a number of standalone games that can be used like this. Microscope was probably the first of these kind of games that I have started to investigate recently. It is a collaborative game that designs a setting. I really like the idea of using Microscope to build a D&D campaign setting, as the resulting setting would grow from the entire group rather than just the referee. It seems like a very natural way to navigate the problems of expectation regarding genre and tone. See also the discussion of Microscope on Monsters & Manuals here and here.

How to Host a Dungeon is a game that develops a dungeon by proceeding through historical eras. There are some standard assumptions about fantasy races built in, but it should be easy to hack for other styles of setting if so desired. It is available in PDF for $5.

FrDave over at Blood of Prokopius also had a recent post about using the railroad board game Empire Builder to generate underworld settings like the one presented in D1-2 Descent into the Depths of the Earth. There are also themed versions of Empire Builder, including Martial Rails, Lunar Rails, and Iron Dragons (about “fantasy” railroads). My guess is that the original is probably fine for this purpose, as some post-processing will be needed in any case to adapt the results for use with a tabletop RPG.

I asked a question on G+ about other such games, and someone mentioned Dawn of Worlds, which is freely available in PDF. It looks somewhat similar to Microscope, but it starts with the premise that every player is a god that has a certain level on influence on the resulting world.

Several people suggested the computer game Dwarf Fortress, a text-only computer game that simulates a dwarven colony. I have never played Dwarf Fortress, but there is an interesting article about it in the New York Times. I don’t have time to look into this game now, but I know it has a very devoted following and might be worth returning to at some point. I’m not sure how easy it would be to import the game result directly into a tabletop RPG, but it could still provide inspiration (and maybe maps).

I would be curious to hear if anyone knows of other games that can be used in this way, or if anyone has experiences building setting elements using games like this.

My print copy of ACKS arrived last week. It’s a beautiful thing. And now I don’t have to wait for my PDF viewer to finish rendering the giant images when I’m looking things up. It almost feels odd being able to quickly leaf through a physical book as I had gotten so used to ACKS in PDF form.

One of my new players knows how to use glue (I apparently don’t, as my Otherword Minis had been waiting for months to be assembled). So he very helpfully put them together for me and now we have more attractive minis to use.

Also, it looks like I’m going to be rather busy this week, so posts might be less frequent.

There is a post over at the D&D Next development blog about backgrounds and themes. I can already hear the old school groans. Oh no, more sets of options that can be used for character optimization! More complexity! But stay with me, I actually think there are some really interesting ideas here. In the article, backgrounds are described as a bundle of skills and themes are presented as a collection of feats. Choosing a background explains where your character came from, and choosing a theme identifies how the character plays. So far, so much like ACKS templates, right? Or Second Edition kits? Well, sort of, but not only.

This background/theme split actually makes a lot of sense to me. I like it because it focuses on character concept rather than character function. This is a move away from the focus on “role” in Fourth Edition. In 4E, role is actually more important than class. Using backgrounds and themes, rather than selecting the skill athletics and a feat that gives a bonus to ranged combat, a player might select the soldier background and the sharpshooter theme. You don’t even really need to be familiar with the skill and feat descriptions (assuming they choose the background and theme names well). You just need to pick fighter, soldier, sharpshooter. Done. More examples from the article:

The first theme you choose is broadly descriptive and flexible. Think Leader, Sharpshooter, or Skirmisher. When you adopt your second theme at 6th level, you might choose another basic theme or you might choose something that grounds you a bit more in the game by selecting an advanced theme. Currently, advanced themes, in concept, resemble the prestige classes from 3rd Edition. They focus your character a bit further, building on the foundation established by another theme, to reflect deep specialization or some character-defining quality. Here are a few ideas off the top of my head. A Sharpshooter becomes an Arcane Archer. A Tempest becomes an Eldritch Knight. A Lurker becomes a Shadowdancer. A Mystic becomes a Necromancer or Enchanter or Abjurer.

A wizard specialist would actually be something you grow into, not something you start as. This makes sense to me intuitively and also follows the principle of character elaboration through play rather than optimized builds constructed before the game.

Background and theme lists also provide a way for the referee to tailor the player interface to a given campaign without requiring the players to read a large setting infodump document. (Such lists might be amenable to random tables, too, for really quick character generation.) One of the examples they give is a set of backgrounds and themes that might be appropriate for a Ravenloft game: Occultist + Avenger, Commoner + Werewolf, or Bereaved + Revenant. That’s only six words right there, and I bet you already have a pretty good idea about the style and content of that campaign (though I have no idea what “revenant” has to do with class play style).

I also like the idea of getting a new theme every five levels rather than multiclassing. It would fit well with E6-style level limits. If someone wanted to play, for example, an E5 game, then the second theme would essentially be an endgame prestige class. More complicated characters would be possible for those that wished to run campaigns with a higher level cap. Blending magical and mundane themes could lead to very interesting non-stereotypical characters (like a wizard who takes the sharpshooter theme) without the blandness of wizard-4, thief-2 (or whatever). This may also help prevent some of the multiclassing abuses like taking first level in several classes just to get the basic class features. From the article:

As I mentioned last time, I can imagine the fighter’s suggested background being soldier. That tells the story of the fighter throughout the editions. By replacing soldier with priest, I suddenly have a very different sort of fighter—even if the mechanical adjustments are shallow and focus on noncombat task resolution. Such a character might have been a temple guard, a crusader, or even Friar Tuck, armed with a quarterstaff.

And, for those groups that like just picking skills and feats directly, it should be immediately obvious how to do that (“DM 5: Come up with your own background by choosing up to four skills”). Or, one could use backgrounds and themes in a more abstract way, akin to the old secondary skill system.

Now, that’s not to say that this design might not devolve into endless options, but I think it has potential to work well with multiple play styles. As the article suggests, if you don’t want to play with skills, the way to do that is to run a game without backgrounds, and if you don’t want to play with feats, the way to do that is to run a game without themes. Elegant, and by reframing the issues it might also help get people to try playing other styles. I could imagine a tactical gamer willing to try a game without themes and an old school player willing to play a game with backgrounds, especially if all the other rules elements that they are familiar with stay the same. I think this is the most innovative and promising design preview I have seen regarding 5E yet, and one of the few that really starts to show how the system might support multiple play styles an a modular way.